Clinical framework to guide operative decision making in disconnected left pancreatic remnant (DLPR) following acute or chronic pancreatitis

Kariuki P. Murage, Chad G. Ball, Nicholas Zyromski, Attila Nakeeb, Carlos Ocampo, Kumar Sandrasegaran, Thomas Howard

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Disconnected left pancreatic remnant (DLPR) presents clinically as a pancreatic fistula, pseudocyst, or obstructive pancreatitis. Optimal operative treatment, either distal pancreatectomy (DP) or internal drainage (ID), remains unknown. This paper critically evaluates our operative experience in patients with DLPR. Methods: A retrospective analysis of a consecutive case series from a single, high-volume institution was carried out. A total of 76 patients with radiographic-confirmed DLPR (computed tomography + endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography) who had operations between November 1995 and September 2008 were included. Pancreas preservation (the use of ID) was our default unless anatomic, physiologic, or technical factors precluded it. Follow-up to July 2009 was done (median follow-up, 22 months). Standard statistical methodology was used (P < .05 = statistical significance). Results: The mean age of this cohort was 52 years (range, 18-85); 57% of the patients were male. A total of 59 (73%) had acute pancreatitis, whereas 17 (22%) had chronic pancreatitis. Presentation was pseudocyst in 53%, pancreatic fistula in 34%, and obstructive pancreatitis in 13%. Resection (DP) and drainage (ID) options were utilized equally for each clinical presentation as follows: pseudocyst, 60/40; pancreatic fistula, 50/50; or obstructive pancreatitis, 50/50. The strongest driver for DP (92%) was a small pancreatic remnant and splenic vein thrombosis. In contrast, large pancreatic remnants had ID 70% of the time. No differences in short- or long-term outcomes between DP or ID options were identified. Conclusion: Using anatomic, physiologic, and technical factors to guide operative choice in DLPR, we report a 74% success rate with DP and an 82% success rate with ID at a median follow-up of 22 months. A pancreatic remnant size >6 cm favored ID options over resection.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)847-857
Number of pages11
JournalSurgery
Volume148
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2010

Fingerprint

Chronic Pancreatitis
Drainage
Decision Making
Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography
Pancreatic Fistula
Pancreatic Pseudocyst
Pancreatectomy
Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography
Pancreatitis
Pancreas
Tomography
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Clinical framework to guide operative decision making in disconnected left pancreatic remnant (DLPR) following acute or chronic pancreatitis. / Murage, Kariuki P.; Ball, Chad G.; Zyromski, Nicholas; Nakeeb, Attila; Ocampo, Carlos; Sandrasegaran, Kumar; Howard, Thomas.

In: Surgery, Vol. 148, No. 4, 10.2010, p. 847-857.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{15fdbbf44b9f4874af112e8a8b9e62ee,
title = "Clinical framework to guide operative decision making in disconnected left pancreatic remnant (DLPR) following acute or chronic pancreatitis",
abstract = "Background: Disconnected left pancreatic remnant (DLPR) presents clinically as a pancreatic fistula, pseudocyst, or obstructive pancreatitis. Optimal operative treatment, either distal pancreatectomy (DP) or internal drainage (ID), remains unknown. This paper critically evaluates our operative experience in patients with DLPR. Methods: A retrospective analysis of a consecutive case series from a single, high-volume institution was carried out. A total of 76 patients with radiographic-confirmed DLPR (computed tomography + endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography) who had operations between November 1995 and September 2008 were included. Pancreas preservation (the use of ID) was our default unless anatomic, physiologic, or technical factors precluded it. Follow-up to July 2009 was done (median follow-up, 22 months). Standard statistical methodology was used (P < .05 = statistical significance). Results: The mean age of this cohort was 52 years (range, 18-85); 57{\%} of the patients were male. A total of 59 (73{\%}) had acute pancreatitis, whereas 17 (22{\%}) had chronic pancreatitis. Presentation was pseudocyst in 53{\%}, pancreatic fistula in 34{\%}, and obstructive pancreatitis in 13{\%}. Resection (DP) and drainage (ID) options were utilized equally for each clinical presentation as follows: pseudocyst, 60/40; pancreatic fistula, 50/50; or obstructive pancreatitis, 50/50. The strongest driver for DP (92{\%}) was a small pancreatic remnant and splenic vein thrombosis. In contrast, large pancreatic remnants had ID 70{\%} of the time. No differences in short- or long-term outcomes between DP or ID options were identified. Conclusion: Using anatomic, physiologic, and technical factors to guide operative choice in DLPR, we report a 74{\%} success rate with DP and an 82{\%} success rate with ID at a median follow-up of 22 months. A pancreatic remnant size >6 cm favored ID options over resection.",
author = "Murage, {Kariuki P.} and Ball, {Chad G.} and Nicholas Zyromski and Attila Nakeeb and Carlos Ocampo and Kumar Sandrasegaran and Thomas Howard",
year = "2010",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1016/j.surg.2010.07.039",
language = "English",
volume = "148",
pages = "847--857",
journal = "Surgery",
issn = "0039-6060",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Clinical framework to guide operative decision making in disconnected left pancreatic remnant (DLPR) following acute or chronic pancreatitis

AU - Murage, Kariuki P.

AU - Ball, Chad G.

AU - Zyromski, Nicholas

AU - Nakeeb, Attila

AU - Ocampo, Carlos

AU - Sandrasegaran, Kumar

AU - Howard, Thomas

PY - 2010/10

Y1 - 2010/10

N2 - Background: Disconnected left pancreatic remnant (DLPR) presents clinically as a pancreatic fistula, pseudocyst, or obstructive pancreatitis. Optimal operative treatment, either distal pancreatectomy (DP) or internal drainage (ID), remains unknown. This paper critically evaluates our operative experience in patients with DLPR. Methods: A retrospective analysis of a consecutive case series from a single, high-volume institution was carried out. A total of 76 patients with radiographic-confirmed DLPR (computed tomography + endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography) who had operations between November 1995 and September 2008 were included. Pancreas preservation (the use of ID) was our default unless anatomic, physiologic, or technical factors precluded it. Follow-up to July 2009 was done (median follow-up, 22 months). Standard statistical methodology was used (P < .05 = statistical significance). Results: The mean age of this cohort was 52 years (range, 18-85); 57% of the patients were male. A total of 59 (73%) had acute pancreatitis, whereas 17 (22%) had chronic pancreatitis. Presentation was pseudocyst in 53%, pancreatic fistula in 34%, and obstructive pancreatitis in 13%. Resection (DP) and drainage (ID) options were utilized equally for each clinical presentation as follows: pseudocyst, 60/40; pancreatic fistula, 50/50; or obstructive pancreatitis, 50/50. The strongest driver for DP (92%) was a small pancreatic remnant and splenic vein thrombosis. In contrast, large pancreatic remnants had ID 70% of the time. No differences in short- or long-term outcomes between DP or ID options were identified. Conclusion: Using anatomic, physiologic, and technical factors to guide operative choice in DLPR, we report a 74% success rate with DP and an 82% success rate with ID at a median follow-up of 22 months. A pancreatic remnant size >6 cm favored ID options over resection.

AB - Background: Disconnected left pancreatic remnant (DLPR) presents clinically as a pancreatic fistula, pseudocyst, or obstructive pancreatitis. Optimal operative treatment, either distal pancreatectomy (DP) or internal drainage (ID), remains unknown. This paper critically evaluates our operative experience in patients with DLPR. Methods: A retrospective analysis of a consecutive case series from a single, high-volume institution was carried out. A total of 76 patients with radiographic-confirmed DLPR (computed tomography + endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography) who had operations between November 1995 and September 2008 were included. Pancreas preservation (the use of ID) was our default unless anatomic, physiologic, or technical factors precluded it. Follow-up to July 2009 was done (median follow-up, 22 months). Standard statistical methodology was used (P < .05 = statistical significance). Results: The mean age of this cohort was 52 years (range, 18-85); 57% of the patients were male. A total of 59 (73%) had acute pancreatitis, whereas 17 (22%) had chronic pancreatitis. Presentation was pseudocyst in 53%, pancreatic fistula in 34%, and obstructive pancreatitis in 13%. Resection (DP) and drainage (ID) options were utilized equally for each clinical presentation as follows: pseudocyst, 60/40; pancreatic fistula, 50/50; or obstructive pancreatitis, 50/50. The strongest driver for DP (92%) was a small pancreatic remnant and splenic vein thrombosis. In contrast, large pancreatic remnants had ID 70% of the time. No differences in short- or long-term outcomes between DP or ID options were identified. Conclusion: Using anatomic, physiologic, and technical factors to guide operative choice in DLPR, we report a 74% success rate with DP and an 82% success rate with ID at a median follow-up of 22 months. A pancreatic remnant size >6 cm favored ID options over resection.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77956648492&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77956648492&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.surg.2010.07.039

DO - 10.1016/j.surg.2010.07.039

M3 - Article

VL - 148

SP - 847

EP - 857

JO - Surgery

JF - Surgery

SN - 0039-6060

IS - 4

ER -